I have yet to watch the trailer for this upcoming Jerry Bruckheimer extravaganza, but what I have seen and read so far has me less than enthusiastic.

One teaser article on the project in Empire magazine had Jerry Bruckheimer (the man who inflicted Pearl Harbour on an unsuspecting world - yech!) enthusing about the "authenticity" of the film. When people who clearly know nothing about history (hello Mel Gibson) start talking like professors, I usually find myself reaching for my spatha.

The babble from the Bruckmeister was no exception. Apparently the writer of this King Arthur thing "has discovered the real story of King Arthur", according to Professor Jerry. This discovery is none other than the now rather old and deeply flawed "theory" (speculation, actually) that the Arthur legends have their origins with the Sarmatian troops stationed in Britain. Leaving aside the fact that this "theory" has holes in it that you could march a late Roman army through, this is not something Bruckheimer's script writer has "discovered" by any stretch of the imagination - it's been around for years and is widely discredited.

But Professor Bruckheimer's knowledge of sub-Roman Britain goes further. The learned producer had this to say about "magic" in the film:

There is [some magic], but it's going to be real. In other words, the Picts used to paint themselves from head to toe, either blue or green, to blend into the trees, just like the Special Forces. So you're going to look at the trees, and you're not going to see anything. And all of a sudden, these men are going to come out of the trees. So that's kind of Merlin's magic.

Magic indeed - Bruckheimer seems to have conjured this babbling nonsense out of thin air. But hey, history and fantasy are the same thing, right?

I can't say I'm any more enthusiastic about the look of the film or the costume and armour, judging from the stills I have seen. I'm not sure what this joker is supposed to be representing, but I'm guessing it's one of Arthur's Sarmatian "knights". That guess is based largely on the leather scale "skirt" he is wearing. God knows what that shoulder armour is meant to represent, but I gather the Art Department thought putting lorica segmentata shoulder guards on this fantasy ensemble makes it "Roman". What a pity this form of armour went out of fashion 200 years before the movie is set.

But it's great to see the movie sticking to an old Hollywood tradition - they guys in the background of this photo are wearing standard issue "Movie Roman Arm Guards". Somewhere underneath the "Hollywood" sign in LA there must be a tablet of graven stone enscribed with the words "THOU SHALT NOT MAKE A ROMAN MOVIE WITHOUT CHARACTERS WEARING TOTALLY INACCURATE ARM GUARDS". Gladiator had plenty of them and it's terrific to see the Bruckmeister is not going against tradition.

And no prizes for research or imagination for the Costuming Department for their depiction of Fifth Century Roman officers either. The picture on the right has a Roman officer in classic First Century equipment - plumed Louvre Pretorian-style Attic helmet, muscled cuirass with petruges, short tunic, short red miliatry cloak etc. Just what Hollywood ordered for a Roman. It's a pity this "Roman" makes about as much sense as depicting a modern US soldier in Iraq wearing a powdered wig, brass-buttoned coat, stockings, buckle shoes and a flintlock.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The guy on foot in front of this anachronism, on the other hand, demonstrates that at least someone went to a bookshop and bought a book on the Sarmatians. He is at least wearing something vaguely like Sarmatian armour. Unfortunately, the goose in question didn't actually read his book, since the armour in question is even more anachronistic than the silly "Roman" behind him. The armour is most closely related to royal Scythian equipment - something that a Sarmatian lord may have worn, but in the Fifth Century BC out on the Ukrainian steppes, not 1000 years later in Britain. This is like depicting a modern US solider in Iraq wearing Viking armour and carrying a Danish axe.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

And before anyone tells me I'm being a nasty old pedant, I have no problem with entertaining movies that make no claim to authenticity presenting a garbled/fantasy/Hollywood version of the ancient world. Gladiator did it, but it didn't pretend to be history. Troy is going to do it, but it likewise makes no claim to be accurate. But if Professor Jerry is going around hyping this film as somehow "historical" then he needs to put his research where his mouth is. From the pictures I've seen the people responsible for this pastiche of nonsense did their research in a Prince Valiant comic after several long, fluffy lines of cocaine.

Still, all is not lost. Amid the "Special Operations" camo-Picts, pseudo-Sarmatians and Romans that fell through a wormhole in space and time, there is one aspect of this film which means I will be at the front of the line, waiting for the first tickets.

What could make this cynical old Ostrogoth so happy to see such a steaming crock of foul smelling dreck? Two words - Keira Knightly. Look at the picture of her in that link and you will get the idea. I don't care if they have Arthur flying into battle on UFOs wearing a tutu, so long as the delightful Miss Knightly is on the screen, preferably baring as much skin as she is in that photo.

So, on second thought, I am extremely enthusiastic after all.

PS I should point out that supposedly historical films that mangle history is one of my hot buttons. Others' milage may vary, so please don't take my scathing sarcasm above as any judgement on your own enthusiasm for this film.

One day, of course, someone may actually make a proper movie set in the ancient or medieval world. It hasn't happened yet, but it may happen. Or a pig may fly past my office window.

Cheers,
Grumpy Old Thiu

Visit CLADES VARIANA
Help create the film of Varus' lost legions ...